LexBHUPENDRA SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
404
BHUPENDRA SINGH
v.
THE STA~ OF PUNJAB
March 5, 1968
(S. M. SllQU, J.M. S!mLAT AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.]
B
Code of Criminal Proctdure, 1898, ss. 375, 376 and 423-Duty of
'J{Jpellate Court to examine entire record in proceedlll//S for con{irmatron
of dtath se11te11L:e--if court can acctpt dtf•nct admission of Its CflSt! luzv.
inJl no substance or should exG111lnt rec!ird for itself.
Stnttnce-<Jpptal against-when Supreme Court may interfere.
The appellant lived with his father A in a house adjoining that of the
deceased G who lived there with his two sons and a daughter. An argu-
ment developed one evening between the appellant and one of the sons
of G.
When G intervened, the appellant's father A raised a 'lalkara'
asking the appellant to finish him off. Thereupon the appellant shot and
killed G.
By this time G's two sons, his daughter and one M who lived
neaf-by had arrived and witnessed the occurrence. At the trial the appel-
lant's defence was a pica of alibi but the Trial Coun rejected the defence
and convicted the appellant of G's murder and sentenced him to death.
In appeal, the High Court did not go into the defence evidence because
the counsel appearin~ for the appellant admitted that there was no sub-
stance in it.
The High Court accordingly dismilled the•appeal and con'
finned the sentence of death.
In appeal to this Court against the conviction and the sentence it was
contended that the High Court in not examining the defence evidence for
itself, committed an er'ror and did not properly discharge its duties.
HBLD : (i) Although ordinarily, in a criminal appeal against convic-
tion, the appellate Court, under s. 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
E
can d;smiss the appeal if the Court is of the opinion that theM is no
sufficient ground for interference and it is not necessary for the appellate
Court to examin<0 the entire record for the purpose of arriving at an in·
dependent decision, the position i• different where the appeal is by an
F
accused who is sentenced to death, so that the High Court dealing with
the appeal has before it. simultaneously witb the appeal. a reference for
continnation of the capital sentence under s. 374 of the Code. On a re-
ference for confirmation of sen!ence of death, the High Court is requirctl
to proceed in ·occordance witb sections 375 and 376 of the Code Of Cri·
minal Procedure and the provisions of these sections make it clear that
the duty of the High Court, in dealing with the reference, is not only to
G
see whether the order passed by the Sessions Judge Is correct but to exa-
mine the case for itself and even direct a further enauirv or the taking
of additional evidence if the Court considers it desirable in order to as·
certain the guilt or the innocence of the convicted penon. (407 D-0)
. Jummcn and Others v. The State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1957, S.C. 469;
. Ram ShGnker Singh & Ors. v. State of West Bengal,
(1962) Supp.
1
. S.C.R. 49 at p. 59; applied.
H
(ii) (UPon an exarilination of the entiro evidence by tho Court) : No
grconds had been made out for intcm.rence with the appellant's con·
viotion. [409 D-B)
BHUPBNDRA v. PUNJAB (Bhargava, /.)
A
Masalti v. State of U.P., [1964] 8 S.C.R, 133 at p. 144; referred to.
B
c
(iii) The sentence of death must be set aside and instead the appellant
s.entenced to imprisonment for life
Although ordinarily this Coiirt, in exercise of its power under Art..
136 does not interfere with a sentence, in the present case there were
som'e special features which had to be taken into account : even according
to the proSccution, the murder of G by the appellant was not pn:-
meditated; the act Of firing at him appeared to be that of a hot-beaded
person who was incited to do so by his father; the murder was not in any
way cruel cir brutal. In all these circumstances, tho ends of justice would.
be met if the lesser penalty prescribed by law was awarded to the·
appellant [413 G•Hl
CRIMINAL AIIPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 185-
of 1967.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
May 18, 1967 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Cri-
minal Appeal No. 24 7 of 1967 and Murder Reference No. 23 of
19~.
.
D
A. S. R. Chari, B. A. Desai, S. C. Agarwal, A. K. Gupta,
E
F
G
H
Shiva Pujan Singh and Virendra Verma, for the appellant.
Hans Raj Khanna and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Bbargava, J. Bhupendra SiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.